Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Airbus and the P&W neo enigine

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Airbus and the P&W neo enigine

Old 5th Nov 2017, 00:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: under the sea
Posts: 2,294
Airbus and the P&W neo enigine

I would be interested to hear of first hand experience of operating the PW neo engine on Airbus aircraft. Apart from extended start and idle times before applying take off thrust , I believe there have also been bleed problems causing cruise level restrictions. The unmentionable airline appear to have rejected their order so what do other think of it? A large european loco have ordered it, will they be disappointed?
tubby linton is online now  
Old 5th Nov 2017, 00:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 435
Also some problems of durability. The engine can blow out after as little as 50 hours.

PW is actively working on it.

I really wonder how any airline would buy it, except for very low prices or very high trust in Pratt.
KayPam is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2017, 03:56
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,457
Pratt has pretty much bet their (commercial) future on the geared fan concept, so I'm sure no effort will be spared in getting it right and working out all the bugs.
The real question is how long will it take, and will the airlines be willing to wait and/or put up with the problems until they get it worked out.
I see Pratt is paying Bombardier to compensate for late C-Series deliveries due to Pratt's inability to deliver new engines on time.
I'd hate to see Pratt pull out of the commercial market and focus entirely on the military side, but if they can't get the issues with their geared fan engines resolved fairly quickly that could easily happen.
tdracer is offline  
Old 5th Nov 2017, 09:25
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,478
As mentioned, they take forever to start. Noise and fuel burn are significantly reduced. A few minor changes with other unrelated systems.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2017, 07:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
A rather unnerving 700kgs diversion fuel where the CEO would be more like 1,100 or 1,200!

Overpowered taxi on single pack too. If your SOP is single pack on the ground, then you'll probably be putting both on to reduce that residual rocket thrust and avoid the otherwise constant braking.

I have experienced minor reverser faults on the ECAM too after starting.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2017, 09:30
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Sciolistes View Post
A rather unnerving 700kgs diversion fuel where the CEO would be more like 1,100 or 1,200!
First time that was calculated, did you do it all over again in disbelief?! 700kg sounds like only 3 bathtubs worth...

Originally Posted by Sciolistes View Post
Overpowered taxi on single pack too. If your SOP is single pack on the ground, then you'll probably be putting both on to reduce that residual rocket thrust and avoid the otherwise constant braking
That's quite intersting. I wonder if that's a characteristic of GTFs in general, or something specific about what P&W have done. I'll have to ponder that. I wonder how that'd scale if RR did a large 90klbs GTF?
msbbarratt is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.